Le 17/01/2014 12:57, ml a écrit :
> I believe this case should be better solved by creating a 3 pad footprint and
> corresponding schematic symbol instead of putting away the most common
> requirement for nonoverlapping parts. Anyway I see that there are such unusual
> needs :-)
>
> I can implemen
The allowance of overlapping pads in the DRC is pretty essential at
the moment because KiCad cannot do polygon pads or multiple drill
holes (as Wayne pointed out). Therefore when people require unusual
pad shapes they end up making them out of overlapping pads, relying on
the current behaviour.
Ho
I believe this case should be better solved by creating a 3 pad footprint and
corresponding schematic symbol instead of putting away the most common
requirement for nonoverlapping parts. Anyway I see that there are such unusual
needs :-)
I can implement a checkbox in the Design Rules Editor dialog
On 1/15/2014 7:40 AM, ml wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I found that the DRC passes when two pads within the same net but different
> footprints are overlapping. The code is (pcbnew/drc.cpp):
>
> // The pad must be in a net (i.e pt_pad->GetNet() != 0 ),
> // But no problem if pads have the same netcode (same n
On 01/15/14 13:40, ml wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I found that the DRC passes when two pads within the same net but different
> footprints are overlapping. The code is (pcbnew/drc.cpp):
>
> // The pad must be in a net (i.e pt_pad->GetNet() != 0 ),
> // But no problem if pads have the same netcode (same net)
Hi!
I found that the DRC passes when two pads within the same net but different
footprints are overlapping. The code is (pcbnew/drc.cpp):
// The pad must be in a net (i.e pt_pad->GetNet() != 0 ),
// But no problem if pads have the same netcode (same net)
if( pad->GetNet() && ( aRefPad->GetNet() =
6 matches
Mail list logo
